Possible streamlining of skill roll.

[Deathwing]

I dont think its in the Blood Bowl Living Rules 1.2, I'm checking right now. Under "Rolling Doubles" it says if you rolled doubles you can ignore the result on the table and choos any skill or a trait.

But if you roll 11 (5+6) or 10 (6+4 only) you are stuck with it, thats what I interpret it like.

I recall it being mentioned elsewhere that this was supposed to go in last Oct. but got 'lost' somewhere along the line. I'd expect to see it next review anyway, so we've brought it in, even if it's technically a house rule for now.
I'll see if the thread's still here (damn this auto-wipe!).

Edit:
viewtopic.php?t=692&highlight=shadowing

and..

viewtopic.php?t=1044&highlight=saurus

[voyagers_uk]

I think it is mentioned on the awaiting BBRC review page on Galak's website.

http://www.blood-bowl.net

along with Halfling chefs for head coach, kroxigors with MB etc.

[Pantera]

Ok, sound good that it will become official. When clarifying this, remember that it also says under stat increases "However, no characteristic may ever be increased by more than 2 points over its starting value. Any additional increases are lost and the Star Player roll is wasted."

If you can take a Skill instead of an attribute raise, the Star Player roll cannot be wasted.

Also, I was thinking on the suggestion of +1 ST or +1 AV. As it gives you two choices it could be a problem (?) if one player rolls 12 three times or more. It gives an opening for +4 totally if you raise both STR and AV (would have to be both an lucky bastard and a star player of course) whereas the other two stat increases are only allowed +2 total as they only have one choice.

[Deathwing]

Although we're getting more and more away from the topic, I just wanna add that I'm against raising AV by any means whatsoever. The whole point of aging was to increase player turnover, and there's certainly a belief that aging doesn't have enough bite as it stands. Why would you bring in something that increases player longevity?

[Norse]

OK, ST of AG on a 12 works well for me...

The reason I suggested ST or AV is because both have a huge impact upon the game, so a Troll Slayer at S5 and AV10 would be a handful methinks...

By making it ST or AG though, you please all players...

"Do I want an ST4 wardancer or an AG5 wardancer... "

[Pantera]

Skill Roll:

2-6 = Normal Skill Access
7 = Any Skill.
8-9 = Normal Trait Access or Normal Skill Access
10 = MA increase or Normal Skill Access
11 = AG increase or Normal Skill Access
12 = ST increase or Normal Skill Access

I still like this suggestion though. And as there seems to be confusion about the Skill Roll Table, I think its good to talk about a change. Why not remove the doubleroll rule, if you still are going to change the rules for rolling 6,4 and 5,6. The above suggestion cleares out the problem with 10+ rolls.

I think I'm going to test it in our next league.

[sean newboy]

Perhaps
2-6 Normal skill
7 Any skill or a trait
8-9 Normal skill
10 Ma or skill, trait on double 5
11 Ag or St or skill
12 Av or skill or trait

[Mestari]

That's a very good point Toby..

swapping doubles for a roll of 7 would make NO DIFFERENCE to the number of traits currently obtained..

Some people seem to be forgetting the beginning of the thread.
To remind you:
Trait and any skill access were separated - so you DO get more traits.
Why was this done?
The rationale behind this was that under the current rules a doubles roll is a trait vs. any skill choice, thus narrowing the amount of options available, especially compared to 3rd ed.
The idea behind the change is to create situations where you could choose between a normal skill and a trait, without having the possibility to choose skills from non-allowed categories.

For example, in the version below (the original with the bonus magic helmet thing added in) you can see the odds. These odds are IMO reasonable and promote a wider selection off skills.

Code: Select all

    (1/36)     2    = Magic Helmet and a Normal Skill
    (14/36)   3-6 = Normal Skill Access 
    (6/36)     7    = Any Skill. 
    (11/36)   8-9 = Normal Trait Access or Normal Skill Access 
    (3/36)     10 = MA increase or Normal Skill Access 
    (2/36)     11 = AG increase or Normal Skill Access 
    (1/36)     12 = ST increase or Normal Skill Access 

PS. Sean - your suggestion is way too complicated. The one above (or the original suggestion) is easier to remember.

[neoliminal]

We need to be very careful about AV increses. They can cause players to jump dramatically up the survivability scale. Any AV 7 player will tell you that moving up to AV 8 would increase their chances of survival dramatically. An AV 9 player will have his chances of being injuried cut in half by an increase to AV 10.

In short, AV increases are extremely dangerous to play balance. Unless there were more AV reduction mechanics in the game, I'd want to avoid them.

[Toby]

I want to relativate that, with the following:

If you had to choose to increase AV or ST, AV would be preferable over ST on few occasions. (same goes with MA and AG)

[neoliminal]

The only time I can think of where AV is better than ST is on Big Guys (or any other ST 4+ player)

[Toby]

Well maybe a Strength 2 Catcher with AV+1 is a bette investment as well, because Strength 2 or Strength 3 the Guy will be knocked over as soon as he tries to score. So while ST+1 forces an Assist on the Blitz, AV+1 saves the neck of your scorer. Can't tell whats definitely better.

[Acerak]

Wow, this topic has veered wildly!

Ok, I think Teemu has the right handle on the idea behind the change. Simply, it's to get a few more traits into the game while also streamlining the table. I think John's suggestion does a good job in a way that a suggestion like this...

2-6 Option A
7 Something Else
8-9 Option A Again

...does not.

Anyway, it's something to consider. It would be nice to have a single chart that covers all of the possibilities, instead of what we currently have:

2-9 New Skill
10 MA+1
11 AG+1
12 ST+1

(Oh, except that you can gain traits, but they aren't mentioned on the chart, and you need doubles rolls, which are also missing from the chart, and a roll of 10 isn't always MA+1, and...)

Two small items:

1. The "Any skill on a roll of 10-12" rule should have made it into the last Rules Review. It didn't. It will make the rounds this October and is almost certain to pass, so feel free to use it in your leagues as a sort of "unofficial official rule"!

2. Magic Helmets are Magic Items, and as soon as we get the ball rolling on experimental rules for these trinkets, I'm sure they'll find their way back into the game. But I'd bet that they won't be included on the skill chart.

Cheers!

-Chet

[martynq]

Wow! How quickly this topic has moved. When I saw it yesterday afternoon, it has just had a few messages and I thought I would do a bit of probabilistic analysis and add something. Now returning about 24 hours later, I find that we've devised about four or five further possible tables, considered adding changing AV or not, and disagreed mildly or vehemently according to our preference.

Perhaps the first question that actually needs to be addressed is whether we need (a few) more traits brought into the game? Once we know the answer to that, the table could be drawn up afterwards. I do think it is a good thing that traits are a little bit rare - it makes doubles choices more interesting: it is no longer the no-brainer of picking a Strength skill if you don't normally get Strength access (etc.).

(As a side-note, I agree with Chet that introducing AV adjustments into this table could cause problems. I'd like to see the Magic Helmets to return in some form though! )

Has there ever been a poll on whether there should be more traits in the game?

Cheers,
Martyn

[christer]

2-6 Option A
7 Something Else
8-9 Option A Again

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but...

A variation on this which looks "cleaner" while still having the same probabilities would be:

2-4 "Something Else"
5-9 "Option A"

Actually, moving the double-roll to the 2-4 option would slightly increase the number of traits chosen. As the table stands now, there's more or less a 4/36 chance to get a trait (I'm assuming people mostly chooses MA or ST). With this modification, there is a 1/6 (or 6/36) chance to get traits.

Both goals accomplished. Double-roll complication removed and slightly more traits in the game. Another variation if you want to increase traits even more is:

2-7 Normal Skill
8-9 Any skill or allowed trait

This would yield a 1/4 (or 9/36) chance. This table is very similar to John's table, which in itself looks good. The difference is that this table doesn't have the added special '7' and due to this is similar to the injury roll table.

If these points have been mentioned before, I apologize.

-- Christer